Apolyton University - Page 7

FrustratedPoet · November 3, 2002, 14:36

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
(don't ask me why there...).

Because I just happened to be viewing that thread when I thought about it and posted before thinking if it was entirely appropriate.

Theseus · November 3, 2002, 16:46

Here's my thinking: Instead of AU 202 being a PBEM, let's get a little familiar with PTW first.

How about a Standard and relatively easy map, with all of the 8 new civs. Everybody plays a *different* civ, and we compare notes on what takes place, civ characteristics and UUs, changes in gameplay, etc. It would be useful to do this as a scenario again, to allow for different difficulty levels.

I think the Realms Beyond guys (Sullla, Sirrian, et al) do it this way.

We can still do PBEMs independently for the moment (although I seem to have fumbled my first attempt

).

Dominae · November 3, 2002, 17:17

Sounds like a fine idea Theseus. I'm with the Mongols, if no one objects.

Dominae

nbarclay · November 4, 2002, 06:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus

How about a Standard and relatively easy map, with all of the 8 new civs. Everybody plays a *different* civ, and we compare notes on what takes place, civ characteristics and UUs, changes in gameplay, etc. It would be useful to do this as a scenario again, to allow for different difficulty levels.

I'd like to put in my bid for the Ottomans. The Scientific/Industrious combination holds a good bit of appeal to me, and there's nothing I like better than a good cavalry blitz - except, I suspect, a good Sipahi blitz! (I've about decided to break down and get PtW sometime this week rather than waiting for a sale; it's just too annoying reading about it but not being able to play it.) Note: I'm assuming the guide I just downloaded from CivFanatics is accurate about the traits and UUs.

Nathan

ducki · November 4, 2002, 15:18

I'm rather unproven with you guys, but if you come up short on people (less than 8 ) I'd be glad to give it a shot.

I prefer industrious, but I'm trying to break that habit, so if you end up with not enough people to fill out all 8 civs, I can fill a spot.

I put it this way because I don't want to take a spot away from an active AU-er - I'm good with being an Alternate.

Dominae · November 14, 2002, 15:53

So...how about starting AU-202? I largely skipped 201, so maybe this is a bit preemptive.

As I mentioned in other posts, I think we should do a "PTW" theme for 202. Nothing special, mostly everthing random, but you can only select your civ among the new civs. Hopefully we'll get a good mix so as to be able to get feedback on every new civ.

I also think we should stick with stock PTW for this one.

If none of the "core" AU people want to set up this game, I'll gladly do it.

Dominae

alexman · November 14, 2002, 16:03

Sounds good! Just in time for the weekend.

I propose two changes to the stock rules though. 1) Fix the Wealth build-never bug for Spain. I cannot believe it was intentional. 2) Increase the attack strength of infantry by 1. Prior to tanks, the AI builds guerillas for offense instead of infantry.

ducki · November 14, 2002, 17:29

What about reliving an old AU in PtW?

It would give a chance to compare notes, and most especially, to compare the new AI against the old one.

We have all seen differences in AI behavior, but since AU already has some "baseline data" to compare to, a recreation of a previous AU might give a lot of insight.

Dominae · November 14, 2002, 18:14

alexman, I'm fine with the minor changes you suggest. Come to think of it, might as well increase the Infantry's power to 8 just like in the old version of the mod. This will put Guerillas back where they're supposed to be (as an upgrade, no more), and make Infantry and relatively potent attack force.

Dominae

FrustratedPoet · November 14, 2002, 18:39

Quote:

Originally posted by ducki
What about reliving an old AU in PtW?

It would give a chance to compare notes, and most especially, to compare the new AI against the old one.

Excellent plan. The old AU mod was designed to fix holes in the AI of stock Civ3.
Since some 'mnor' tweaks have taken place in PTW it would be a good chance to compare an old game that used the AU mod with a new game that uses PTW's updated AI.

This will tell you where the changes for your new mod will have to be focused.

nbarclay · November 14, 2002, 21:57

Quote:

Originally posted by ducki
What about reliving an old AU in PtW?

It would give a chance to compare notes, and most especially, to compare the new AI against the old one.

We have all seen differences in AI behavior, but since AU already has some "baseline data" to compare to, a recreation of a previous AU might give a lot of insight.

Sounds okay if we can get the map from a stock Civ 3 scenario and use it in PtW without risking introducing bugs. AU 105, The Power of Gold, would probably be the most logical candidate since it's the last AU game that didn't have some pretty weird stuff in its set-up. (201 was ridiculously loaded in the player's favor, 107 was almost as badly loaded against the player, and 106 was rigged to prevent contact until the discovery of Navigation or Magnetism.)

Nathan

nbarclay · November 15, 2002, 01:54

I have a scenario set up if everyone wants to use it: AU 205 - The Power of Gold Revisited. I took the Power of Gold .bic file, loaded it into the PtW editor, and modified it so a choice of the PtW civs is playable. (I'm trying out Carthage this time, since I've already done the Ottomans.) I've played to 1100 BC and things seem to be working fine; I can definitely build my UU. The reason for the 205 course number is that it's customary for successor courses on the same subject to have the same trailing digits in their course numbers.

I'll go ahead and post the file here, and if this is what everyone wants to play, we can start official threads for it. I'll leave it to Alexman to make an AU Mod version if this is what we go with.

Nathan

P.S. It would be nice if we could post .bic and .bix files without the hassle of zipping and unzipping.

Dominae · November 15, 2002, 10:25

Thanks nbarclay for setting up this game. I never played the first Power of Gold course, so I look forward to this one (hopefully the first course is not a prerequisite for the second one).

However, won't everyone who played this game through the first time not really be interested in doing it again, even with the new PTW civs? I know that much of the excitement of a game (for me) is discovering the world geography...

Dominae

nbarclay · November 15, 2002, 11:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae
Thanks nbarclay for setting up this game. I never played the first Power of Gold course, so I look forward to this one (hopefully the first course is not a prerequisite for the second one).

However, won't everyone who played this game through the first time not really be interested in doing it again, even with the new PTW civs? I know that much of the excitement of a game (for me) is discovering the world geography...

Dominae

On one hand, this game loses the thrill of discovering the map. On the other, though, it's interesting playing much the same game and seeing how the PtW changes affect it. I even decided to play on Monarch rather than Emperor so I'd be playing the same level I did the first time through (and I'm starting to be glad I did).

Nathan

alexman · November 15, 2002, 11:48

Thanks for setting it up, Nathan. I will make a new thread for AU205. Besides the standard rules (well, almost standard), it will include not an AU mod version, but a test killer AI version.

PS. Dominae, check your PMs.

nbarclay · November 15, 2002, 12:25

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
Thanks for setting it up, Nathan. I will make a new thread for AU205. Besides the standard rules (well, almost standard), it will include not an AU mod version, but a test killer AI version.

PS. Dominae, check your PMs.

Almost standard???

alexman · November 15, 2002, 12:26

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
I propose two changes to the stock rules though. 1) Fix the Wealth build-never bug for Spain. I cannot believe it was intentional. 2) Increase the attack strength of infantry by 1. Prior to tanks, the AI builds guerillas for offense instead of infantry.

Well, number 1 is not relevant for this scenario, since we don't have an AI-contolled Spain.

Konquest02 · December 2, 2002, 19:41

For the next AU game (whatever it is called... 202?) I think we should have tow simultaneous games, one with PTW and one with regular Civ3. This will allow a maximum of people to play the game and compare between the two games. What do you think?

--Kon--

nbarclay · December 2, 2002, 20:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Konquest02
For the next AU game (whatever it is called... 202?) I think we should have tow simultaneous games, one with PTW and one with regular Civ3. This will allow a maximum of people to play the game and compare between the two games. What do you think?

Agreed. I've suggested the same thing myself, albeit long enough ago to give people plenty of time to forget. (The only reason we didn't post two versions of AU 205 was that AU 105 was the non-PtW version of AU 205.)

Any thoughts on what we should do for AU 202?

Nathan

alexman · December 2, 2002, 21:05

With inspiration from Aeson's Scouting thread, how about focusing on the power of expansionist civs this time?

We could play a barb-less standard pangea map, with the Americans or something. The goal would be to use scouts to uncover the map, control communications, get lots of goodies, and advance through the ancient-age tech tree. We could either abandon the game after the Middle Ages (where the expansionist trait is no longer relevant) and compare notes, or play it out to the end.

Theseus · December 2, 2002, 21:34

Hmmm...

First off, I'm still struggling with 205 (when I have time and am not on 'poly!).

I like the idea of exploring Expansionist, but there's a part of me that wants to play as, oh, Egypt! And maybe we could play against, errrr, Persia, Carthage, China, Ottoman, Arabia, and Spain!

ducki · December 2, 2002, 21:38

I find communication control easier on Continent Maps when I get the Lighthouse, as I've yet to find a way to keep two sets of civs separate on Pangea... maybe I'm missing something, or maybe I just never get lucky with chokepoints.

nbarclay · December 2, 2002, 22:12

If you want a game where Expansionist really shines, a huge, sparsely populated (e.g. eight civs) pangea map with sedentary barbarians is the way to go - especially if none of the other civs is expansionist (or Aztec). On standard maps, it's rare to have a situation where the civs don't meet each other fairly quickly, making exchange of contacts inevitable shortly after the discovery of writing. The question is, would a huge map be acceptable in an AU game deliberately intended not necessarily to be played past the beginning of the industrial era? (Well, that and the fact that from a Gathering Storm perspective, I kind of like Theseus's idea.)

Nathan

Dominae · December 2, 2002, 22:40

Personally I dislike the idea of playing a scenario with specific goals that ends prematurely when those goals are met. This is why I didn't play the UP scenario (apart from an embarrassing OCC attempt...). Proving to ourselves the Aeson's scouting strats work great on Huge maps with no Barbs doesn't seem like all that much fun to me. Knowing Aeson, I'm quite sure that he's dead on without needing to try it out myself.

However, I do like the idea of focusing on Expansionist civs. Maybe we could try a Standard map (maybe Pangea) with little to no Barbs, and the only civ choices would be the Expansionist ones. I think this would force some of us to use some oft-neglected civs, and teach us about the true power of Expansionist. Assuming not everyone defaults to the Iroquois, we could have some interesting games (special kudos for those who choose the English!).

Come to think of it, to make the game even more interesting, we could focus on the Expansionist civs that are most often neglected: English, Russians, Americans. This would hopefully stimulate us to play the game through.

Dominae

alexman · December 2, 2002, 22:42

But that's what would have value for us to practice in the AU. Playing as expansionists on a less-than-ideal map for the trait. I think people have a misconception about the value of the expansionists, and would be surprised in how effective it can be on even standard maps.

As for communications, you'd be surprised what you can do with scouts guiding AI units around!

Having said that, Egypt with the GS settings sounds good as well.

Dominae · December 2, 2002, 22:55

alexman, I'm not sure if your post is a response to mine, so I'll assume it is. I thought your original proposal was to mimic Aeson's use of Scouts on Huge Pangea maps with no Barbs, and stop when our Scouts have done their job. If what you were proposing is Expansionist on any given map, I'm all for it (basically because of a new-found love for Expansionist).

The GS clone game wouldn't make much sense for those who aren't involved in the Demo. Game.

Dominae

Harovan · December 2, 2002, 23:07

Btw, Dominae, check your PM please

.

Dominae · December 2, 2002, 23:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Btw, Dominae, check your PM please

.

Sorry about that. I've been reminded to check my PMs before, so you'd think I'd learn from that, no?

Dominae

Theseus · December 3, 2002, 00:10

An all-Expansionist game is an interesting concept...

Did people not play AU 205? There hasn't been too much commentary.

Let's NOT mimic the PTW game with AU 2XX... bad suggestion on my part. Too much other interesting stuff to check out, especially with PTW 1.14.

nbarclay · December 3, 2002, 00:15

How about setting things up so the AIs are all not expansionist and the player can choose any expansionist civ to play? (If the AIs are allowed to play expansionists, we can't give the human player the full range of expansionist civs to choose from and still face the same opponents. Besides, the expansionist trait is at its best when you're the only one.) Or we could pick an expansionist AI or two from among the civs human players are least likely to choose.

Nathan